This Is Why Pure Democracy Is a Bad Idea

Tuesday wasn’t a good election day—in New York City and a few other places, and also here in our local school district. But, as a friend reminded with a meme, “There’s no crying in politics.”

Shared on a friend's Facebook post

What to do instead? At such times, I turn to Philippians 4:8:

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

So, I’ll personally be enjoying other things, before getting too involved in upcoming primaries (early voting starts mid-February). And for this post, I think I’ll try to uncover some truth and see if it can be useful.

First we’ll look at the Mamdani win. And then we’ll take a somewhat closer look at the school board.

To read the full article, follow LINK TO SUBSTACK.

Parental Rights Policy at the School Board Meeting

I spoke at the Cy-Fair ISD (independent school district) school board meeting Thursday night—for one minute. Actually, less than that, because I was waiting for a signal at the microphone, which I shouldn’t have done, so I lost about 10 seconds and didn’t get through my last two sentences. Anyway, the subject was a proposed parental rights policy, to align with state law, and to clarify some things for our district. While there was more in the policy related to parental rights (having access to records and educational materials, requiring parental permissions for such things as surveys and data collection of the child), the controversial part was about transgenderism.

Cy-Fair ISD School Board votes on parental rights policy, January 16, 2025,
screenshot from here

A couple of months ago, the Board passed a policy stating that students will use the bathrooms and locker rooms appropriate to their biological sex at birth. That got some backlash as well, but not as much as this one.

This one includes the following:

·       When a child presents as other than his or her biological sex at school, the parent must be informed.

·       No educational materials are allowed that support or indoctrinate or teach that gender is fluid or other than biological sex is allowed. Nor can a teacher or other staff share any such material, or online links to such material from their private collections.

·       Reasonable accommodations, such as using a different name or opposite-sex pronouns, can be made for a trans child at the request of parents, in consultation with the schools. If a teacher or staff member doesn’t feel comfortable complying with such decisions, accommodations can be made for that teacher or staff member.

I’m paraphrasing. The actual policy is pages 27-29 of the agenda, here. 

The policy comes on the heels of nearby Katy ISD, which instituted the policy in 2023 and has now had a year of implementation. Ours was not copied from theirs. At some point I plan to set them side-by-side, but as I look briefly, the ideas are similar, but this is not a copy and paste. I was privy to some discussion about this policy a couple of months ago, and felt my concerns and suggestions were heard and respected. So I knew the policy was being worked on, but I had not seen it until after Monday’s Board meeting work session.

We successfully elected six of the seven Board members (there were only 6 present at Thursday night’s meeting) because they aligned with our beliefs—instead of the woke agenda of the previous members. So I knew how the vote would likely go. But I also knew the room would be filled with opposition, and I thought they could use some support.

The One-Minute Speech

So, anyway, here is my one minute—and then I’ll say a bit more of what I couldn’t share in so brief a presentation.

I’d like to speak in favor of the proposed parental rights policy.

At Monday’s work session, the similar Katy ISD policy was referenced. The news story that followed mentioned that the effect of the Katy policy was 23 students in that district “being outed” to their parents last year.

Let me rephrase that: 23 sets of parents did not have their rights abrogated by the school district, who otherwise would have.

There are many supposed rights that a minor child does not get, among them: the right to publicly “change their identity” while enlisting the schools to keep that a secret from their fit parents.

It was mentioned, threateningly, that Katy ISD is under investigation for civil rights violations, and we would bring on such an investigation here. But which is better: fight an investigation that will verify that our policy adheres to the law? Or fight some 23 lawsuits annually from families whose parent-child relationships were seriously damaged because of the school’s unlawful violation of parental rights?

The fact that parental rights would be violated by school personnel without such a policy shows the need for it.

 

That's me, speaking in favor of the parental rights policy,
at the CFISD School Board meeting, January 16, 2025,
screenshot from here

More to Say

At Monday’s work session, there were some statistics given that I’d like to respond to.

We have about 115,000 students in our school district. Based on a supposed 1.4%, or 14 per thousand, there would be about 1600 trans and nonbinary students in the district. (That would be 17 per campus, although elementary schools should be much lower rates than high schools, so you might presume much fewer elementary students, and maybe up to 30 in a high school.)

That sounds high to me. I checked with research I’ve used before. A 2015 study showed the number of trans people in the adult population to be between 1 and 5 per 1000, with best estimates at 3 per thousand. While I won’t go into this here, statistics have altered significantly in the last couple of decades; prior to that, males claiming to be females were almost the totality of trans people, with almost zero females claiming to be males.

I found a 2022 study that showed the number in the population to be about 6 per thousand when ages 13-17 are included, but recognized the number as steady for adults (which is the 1-5 range, possibly still 3 per thousand).

The number for ages 13-17 is 14 per 1000, which is 3-5 times higher than the adult population. Either:

·       Young people are becoming gender dysphoric at much higher numbers than a decade ago; or

·       Young people who think they are trans resolve those feelings by adulthood; or

·       Both of those could be true.

Fourteen per thousand, as they claim, if one assumes most of the 13-17 would become adult trans people, would be a 5-fold increase in a decade. That is unlikely to happen; it’s a current high school phenomenon.

While the media would lead you to think trans people are everywhere, the odds of having any among your acquaintances would statistically be an anomaly, unless you have many thousands of acquaintances—or you seek them out intentionally.

If there are that many, assuming the human race does not change that rapidly (for such a change, you’d need many millennia—and a population that reproduces), the most likely reason for this relatively large number in high schools is social contagion. If it is social contagion, then we need to stop whatever is causing it.

And that’s why we’ve been working on the curriculum and materials.

Our policy would remove pro-gender-fluidity materials from libraries and instructional materials. The news told us this similar policy resulted in Katy ISD “tossing out” some 400 books. If there were 400 such books in their libraries, in addition to other influences in curriculum, that would lead one to believe the social contagion theory. And we already know similar numbers could be found in our school district.

To be clear, they are not “banning” books when they choose not to buy and place into circulation materials that do not adhere to the educational purpose and standard of the district. We’re not talking about burning To Kill a Mockingbird or Huckleberry Finn, both of which I read together with my children; we’re talking about books that graphically depict—in words as well as pictures—deviant sexual acts with children. The actual message of “you’re not the only one this has happened to” in reference to such acts is to normalize them. (Someone expressed in their one-minute speech it’s good for children to see such things in literature, so they can relate.) Normalizing oversexualized behavior in children, whether forced or consensual, is called grooming; it is a step in victimizing the child. Normalizing gender fluidity is putting the idea into a child—and affirming the idea as a social good—which looks an awful lot like recruiting into a belief cult.

More About the Meeting

I could go on about the topic. I’ve written about it here, here, here, here, here, and here, and probably other places I didn’t find in a quick search. And I’ve written even more on other LGB topics. But for now, let’s get back to how the meeting turned out.

With one member absent, the vote was 5-1 in favor of the policy. It passed. The lone vote against was the predictable Julie Hinaman, the one board seat we were unable to flip. She disagrees with the other Board members on almost everything. The opposition side is definitely organized. There was a group called Cypress-Tomball Democrats that took up more than a couple of long rows, and wore matching blue T-shirts; they stood whenever one of their number spoke. (CFISD is in Cypress, northwest Houston, and Jersey Village, but not Tomball, so some of these may not have even been from our district.)

The room was packed, almost no empty seats. I and two others spoke in favor of the policy. The other 31 who had signed up to speak all spoke against it. I could summarize them all:

·       You’re all hateful, you bigots.

·       Parents of trans kids are almost all abusive. They kick them out on the street.

·       Schools should be a safe place for LGBTQ+IA kids; all those other kids don’t matter. [I don’t know what all the extra letters and symbols mean.]

·       If you don’t give trans kids all the support they insist on, you’re causing them to commit suicide.

·       This Board should be doing things that matter, like bringing back all the bus routes and dealing with discipline and violence. [The board is, of course, doing those other things. It’s not this instead of that. Also, there’d be more time for the other, if there wasn’t so much time taken up by these protesters.]

A number of speakers were teachers. They stated blatantly that they support keeping parents in the dark about what their kids do in school. And there was a parent who said he’d much more trust a trans kid than a parent of a trans kid.

I did get booed, by the way.

Also, I got asked by the media to do an interview afterward. It was scary enough to get up in front of several hundred people to give my one minute with a room full of—dare I say it, frothing mob of intolerant sex-obsessed haters. But I said yes to the interview. It was KHOU. They were kind, and it didn’t turn out too badly, although I’d just as soon never do that again.

One question they asked me was why I came. I had to think about that, and how to say it. This was not on camera. But, I knew how the vote would turn out. I just wanted to support my friends on the Board, and offer a little something that probably no one else was saying.

What really happened was, when I woke that morning, God put it on my heart. I felt I needed to do it, and I needed to get my name on the sign-up list to speak before noon. So I did it.

I didn’t feel physically threatened; police officers were plentiful. But that room had been full of venomous hate. So I suppose it was kind of brave. I was shaking afterward, and it took until bedtime to get my pulse to stop racing. I guess I was stressed.

There was another issue on the agenda that got similar treatment. It related to whether to change a health class from required to elective. Health includes sex-ed, but that can be opted out (rather, it must be opted in specifically, I believe). One speaker told us Christians that, if we’re against that health class, we must favor more abortions, even in a state where they’re no longer legal, because this class teaches how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, so without it being forced upon all students, we’ll get more abortions. 

So, again, the intolerant crowd wants to force every child to be indoctrinated their way. Or, if you assume there is some good information in the class (I’m sure there is), no family should have a choice about it, even though all the materials related to state testing will be handled in other classes. The choice to make it an elective passed, so no one who wants to take it will be missing out.

Ironically, the meeting started with an annual “honor the school board” presentation, with love and affection coming from all the schools and staff, in a short, heart-touching video. And then the room full of haters told them how horrible they are.

So it’s all the more reason to support our brave Board members, who have to face the hate more constantly and publicly than I faced in my little adventure. It’s a lot of work, and they do not get paid. We should thank them for their hazardous-duty service.

Related News Stories

·       Houston Chronicle  “Cy-Fair ISD board may adopt controversial policy that 'outs' transgender students to their parents” 

·       Houston Chronicle  “Conroe ISD trustees plan to make a new gender fluidity policy” 

·       Houston Chronicle  “Katy ISD’s transgender policy under civil rights investigation by Department of Education” 

·       Houston Chronicle  “Katy ISD will require teachers to report transgender students to parents” 

·       Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act 2025  H.R.28 — 119th Congress (2025-2026)All Information (Except Text) 

The Costs of Standing Strong

We had one last school board meeting as the school year ended. Our board meetings are typically in two parts. There’s a work meeting, and a few days later an official board meeting. These are usually on the first or second Monday/Thursday or Thursday/Monday combination of the month. This month these were June 13 and June 17.

Cy-Fair ISD board meeting Monday, June 17, 2024
screenshot from here

At last Thursday’s work meeting, June 13, I expected the major discussion to be related to changing the library book removal policy, because of activity in social media. I read through the proposed language and felt pretty good about it, although I had a couple of questions.

What happened at the Thursday meeting, however, was a lot of hubbub about the removal of certain chapters from textbooks before approving them for purchase in the district. This related to a vote taken at the previous board meeting, in May. I wrote about this in some detail then. And I made a prediction that has so far come true:

You can assume that the loud cohort will scream again, at the next board meeting, and the one after that…. Tolerating their tantrums is going to be one of the costs of standing up to them in order to stop allowing them to indoctrinate our kids.

And so it goes.

The Curriculum Selection Complaint

At the work session, a teacher who had been on the curriculum selection committee, specializing in earth science, filed a formal complaint against the board for violating policy by not rubberstamping the recommendations of the committee. She spoke, along with her lawyer.

The complainant (and the hoard of others complaining) failed to note that the board is instructed to use to committee to vet and select materials to be used; it does not say the board has to purchase all the materials recommended.

There was a point at which the board member who had moved to remove the particular materials last month, Dr. Natalie Blasingame, disagreed that a National Geographic text was the gold standard; she would have preferred a different text (a different text that was also approved by the SBOE, but that this committee did not select). She did not push to have her choice used instead; she limited her request to only those texts selected by the committee—and then asked for removal of particular chapters. It’s not clear to me whether the Board has the power to choose SBOE-approved books beyond what is recommended by the local committee, but the fact is they didn’t attempt to do so.

CFISD Board Vice President Dr. Natalie Blasingame
screenshot from here

During the discussion, the complainant and her lawyer both admitted that the board indeed had the authority to act as they did; in other words, they did not violate the policy the complaint claims they violated.

That should end the issue. But with these people, nothing but getting their way will do.

During the Thursday work session, we learned more details about what was being removed. One thing we learned was that it wasn’t Dr. Blasingame’s preference to remove entire chapters. She would have been satisfied with particular paragraphs being removed. However, the books could only be provided on a chapter-by-chapter basis. This means that, for students, those chapters will not be available to them for reading.

But what about the TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills)? That was the insistent question. How are they going to learn materials required of them in annual testing, if they can’t get to these materials?

The short answer is, the same way they always have: by whatever means the teachers bring it to them.

To begin with, none of the problematic material is part of TEKS. There are, however, TEKS items in the removed chapters. But the way most classrooms work is not by simply having students read the textbook and then discussing and testing. In fact, only occasionally will the students be assigned reading from the texts (which are digital online copies, not physical books, by the way). Much of the material—including material coming from the texts—is presented in class by the teacher, with supplementary materials, graphs, charts, data, stories, etc., along with activities, labs, etc.

The teachers can use the full textbooks as a resource, just as they normally would; they just can’t present the problematic materials. So the hue and cry about all the extra work of creating curriculum is irrelevant. There was a complaint that teachers couldn't prepare and were way behind in their lesson plans, because of this unsureness about materials—except that it has been known, since last month, what was the minimum available, and there was no reason not to go ahead and lesson plan.

One item mentioned in the May meeting was “depopulation.” The complainant said she had done a search of all the material, and that word was not even used. However, when the problematic section was read last Thursday, the idea that humans are harmful to the planet and we need fewer of them was clearly there—and that is something this community does not want indoctrinated into our students.

In a private online forum, a participant tells this:

started reading some of the chapters that were removed from the science books.  ~98%+ of the material is fine however when you get to the statement saying we're all gonna die if we don't stop using fossil fuels you can see why people had an issue with the content…. Please show me the empirical peer reviewed study that proves that we're all gonna die if we don't stop using fossil fuels. It is not science.

My guess is he’s not directly quoting from the text, but we’ve all read similar assertions from the “mankind is bad for the planet” faith viewpoint. It doesn’t coincide with science—and is even less something you could call settled science. Why did it pass with the SBOE? You’ll have to ask your SBOE representative. Ours has made a point of telling school boards that they didn’t have to accept a text just because the statewide board approved it. They could and should make local decisions.

There was another example of vaccines. There’s a concept, new to me, called “phenomenon-based instruction.” It appears to me to mean that concepts are taught using particular event, a phenomenon, possibly from the news. The phenomenon in this particular section of the textbook was COVID-19. So when the concept of vaccination comes up, we’re not dealing with actual vaccines (remember, they had to change the definition of vaccine to apply the word to the COVID-19 jab). We are not dealing with something that causes immunity, reduces spread, or even necessarily lessens the intensity of the virus. And we’re taking on serious risks by taking this non-vaccine non-helpful intervention. All that aside, when a chapter (in that context) states flatly that vaccines save lives, even that is questionable, which board member Todd LeCompte pointed out. (There’s a clip here.) Which vaccines have saved lives? What is the evidence? We used to have maybe three required. Now there are over 70 required. And since the rise in required vaccines, there is a dramatic rise in autism (from 1/10,000 children to 1/36). Is the link between autism and increased vaccination causal? There are people who think so. Which means it is not settled science, and to state it as if it is fact does not increase the critical thinking of our students; it uses authority to stop them from critically thinking.

There was a fair amount of attack on the board for not being the experts, and that they ought to defer to the experts. First of all, Dr. Blasingame is an expert. Second, teaching is not rocket science (even when you’re teaching rocket science). We members of the community can read the material and see clearly what ought not to be there. We’ve seen it before; we’ve put the requests to remove it from schools in our platform and have accomplished some legislation.

And I’ll just mention here, anyone who graduated from high school ought to be able to understand with sufficient clarity any materials used in K-12. The expertise is almost always about how to manage a factory-style group of students, not how or what information to pass along to students. And, I don't want to overstate this, but I’ve been a textbook writer—biology was one. Textbooks are collections of knowledge, for convenience. And some are worthwhile. But every important concept can be taught without a textbook, maybe better than with one, as our teachers already know.

The opponents are claiming the removal of the materials is censorship. It is a decision not to buy materials that the board—and the community that voted them in—find objectionable and untrue. Censorship is the refusal to have certain ideas heard, often true ideas. A student’s speech can be censored, for example. A guest speaker could be censored by being uninvited or shut down through the heckler’s veto. Materials not used are not censored; they are simply not chosen as the materials to use.

The Pre-Purchase Review of Books

There was another issue at the meeting that drew attention of the media, again questioned by board member Julie Hinaman. It related to an update in the policy for acquiring library materials. There’s a 30-day window for the public to review what is being considered for purchase. Again, anything not chosen is money not spent, not books being censored. But the “they’re denying books for our students” crowd are really upset that they can’t put everything they want, not just before their own children, but before all the children. This includes pornography, which they are claiming is valuable for some of our “diverse” students. Anyone who claims pornography should be provided to minors ought to be labeled a child predator. Let’s be clear on what they’re wanting to do to our kids.

Anyway, there’s a proviso that the books would be listed for the board members five days before the list goes public for that 30-day window. As the board counsel explained, the intention was a courtesy to the board. If they are going to receive complaints about books on the list, it would be helpful to them to be aware of the books a little ahead of time. Since the books aren’t yet purchased, it is only the names of the books being provided to the board; they would still have to seek them out themselves to read or learn about them, which can take time. There is no provision for board members to remove books from the list prior to that 30-day public window. (There’s a clip of this exchange here.) But that is what they were being accused of—having some backroom mechanism for influencing the list before the public even sees it.

CFISD Board member Julie Hinaman
screenshot from here

There’s an awful lot of uproar about this supposedly rogue board depriving students of their educational opportunities. We will have to continue to disagree on this—because we worked very hard to elect a board that would finally be responsive to the community, to stop the sexualizing agenda, the SEL and DEI agendas—the agendas pushed by teacher unions and other nefarious moneygrubbing tyrants who have been working for decades to dumb down our kids while claiming they’re the ones caring for the children.

The Organized Opposition

You might not be aware of the organizing of the opposition—trying to make themselves look like a vast majority. I use the word “organized” in the sense of “community organizing,” as in Obama's life work. There are going to be several organization names. One of them is Cypress Families for Public Schools. Board member Julie Hinaman (the lone opposition on the board) belongs to this one. A number of names you would recognize from the public comments and citizen participation each month belong to this group.

When reducing the number of campus librarians became part of the budget discussion last month—at the suggestion of school principals, as a way to handle the budget deficit—there was another organization formed, recruiting people by telling them librarians were being fired (not true), and campus libraries were being closed (also not true), so they could recruit more anti-board furor. I believe the group is CFISD Parents for Librarians. I think parents joined thinking it was an open forum and a way to support libraries (the policy for which they were not being told the truth). But it has been used as a recruitment to the board opposition (i.e., opposition to the majority of voters who elected this board purposely intending to repair the damage over the past two decades from the previous board members). Here’s an example of the ugliness our board members are getting thrown at them in this group:

If we want to protect librarians, teachers/staff, and CFISD, we GOTTA also understand just who is governing our district, their history, their intentions and agenda, and the company they keep.

After the meeting last night, Christian Nationalist extremist trustee Lucas Scanlon said to a community member that he felt the public comments were "mean." Oh, REALLY?!?!

The poster goes on to make multiple accusations against Scanlon, and his wife, Bethany. I am in multiple groups with Bethany (an excellent source on the library books we’d like removed). She often shows examples of these people telling lies about her. I see her defending herself and her husband; I do not see any “vile” or “mean” posts against such persons as this poster—ever.

After my blog post on last month’s meeting, the opposition let me know—because I’d mentioned an email exchange with the board president in which I asked about the ad hominem attacks from the citizen participants, the entirety of the brief contents I had stated—that they were doing a freedom of information request (I’m unsure of the specific title for such a request in our district) to obtain all such correspondence between me and the president, and I’m assuming between him and any other citizen. This is an attempt to intimidate. Fortunately, there’s nothing to see there. But it’s also a warning to all board members to avoid any written exchanges with citizens, despite their board emails being available on the website for the purpose of open communication with the community. Every correspondence is likely to be construed as collusion.

We heard from former board president (whom we voted out), Bob Covey, earlier in the meeting. The Houston Chronicle caught a photo of him later in the meeting, yelling at the board, out of turn. Board counsel threatened to remove him from the meeting (and he did leave). Because I listened online, I missed the outburst; it didn’t get picked up on the microphones, so what he yelled was not in the transcript. But the lack of decorum is astounding.

Former CFISD board president Bob Covey, who had spoken earlier,
yells at the board before leaving. Photo from Houston Chronicle.

A couple of years ago we had similar (but less vile) disruptions from our side—when we were not allowed to voice our opinions. But these people are being heard. In fact, they organized well enough to fill up the entire slate of citizen participation, leaving supporting citizens no time to speak.

Texas House Rep. Jon Rosenthal also spoke. He accused the board of violating the open meetings act by colluding behind the back of Julie Hinaman last month, because the other board members were ready —after a month of study following the April meeting—to vote to remove those chapters and she was not. Hinaman was clearly blindsided by that vote. But if she had spent her time using that extra month to read the materials, she could have predicted what would be problematic to the rest of the board. The board meeting’s conversation (I think this was in Thursday’s work session) made it obvious Dr. Blasingame had spent plenty of time discussing openly her concerns and how to handle them with Dr. Macias, the curriculum director for the district. Others were present during those conversations. It wasn’t something that happened in the darkness of some secret board meeting that excluded Julie Hinaman.

book cover image from Amazon.com

There’s another organization that might be behind some of what’s going on. This is a rabbit hole I went down last night, after a conversation with a friend who had attended Monday’s board meeting. She saw two separate community members carrying a book called We Are Indivisible. It’s written by the founders of a group called Indivisible.org. In a 2017 interview with one of the founders, Ezra Levin, he says the movement started during a Thanksgiving break in an Austin, Texas, bar, shortly after the election of Donald Trump in 2016. He and his wife, Leah, came up with a 23-page document laying out a strategy for political activism, which got boosted by such pro-tyrannists as Robert Reich and George Takei. He relates:

As former congressional staffers, Leah and I decided in that bar to write a guide aimed at demystifying the congressional policy process and copying the Tea Party strategies and tactics (minus the racism and violence).

Isn’t that sweet. Just like us tea partiers—minus the absolutely nonexistent “racism and violence.” Except maybe adding in the anti-racism version of racism, maybe along with some violence, or at least obstructionism in the style of Cloward and Piven. And fundraising—they do a lot of that, unlike our local tea party, which has never handled money at all, and doesn’t organize any protests ever. (We do learn about the legislative process and share information with each other, and freely contact our legislators.) And they add in a whole lot of lying, because you can’t recruit people to such causes by telling the truth about them. They’re very much about killing the preborn—that’s a priority above almost all else.

They have collaborated with Organizing for America, MoveOn, Working Families Party, and Planned Parenthood, among others, to “stand strong against the Trump Administration’s racist, misogynistic, and broadly bigoted agenda.” So, just like the Tea Party—except the exact opposite in every conceivable way.

There are thousands of Indivisible groups, according to Levin. And I am told there is a group in Katy, Texas, aiming particularly at the County DA race, to oppose the Republican, Dan Simons, and put in the radical tyrant who primaried out the Democrat DA, Kim Ogg, because she wasn’t willing to put all the violent felons back out on the streets. Rep. Rosenthal and one other speaker hinted that we’re going to find out in November (in a year when the school board is not on the ballot) just how much trouble we’re in. I think this means they are targeting every Republican near us who is on the ballot.

So this is the enemy army we are up against. These are the ones using social media to lie about what is actually happening in our school board. They are setting their sights on every political race. They will be showing up—with signs already made—at every possible event. And they are calling the media to be there, telling their side of the story to any willing-to-be-partisan reporters.

Stand with Our School Board Heroes

I will note that the school board positions are unpaid. What they are going through is likely to give anyone pause before signing up to run in the future. But we can thank them for being heroes—to our community and to our kids.

There’s no board meeting in July—except a “special called board meeting” on July 23; I don’t know what that is about (no agenda posted yet). The next official meetings are the work session August 3 8 and regular board meeting August 7 12. [Apologies for the error; I thought I was looking at the coming 2024-2025 year, but I was mistakenly looking at the 2023-2024 schedule.] All are at 6:00 PM, in the board meeting room of the Henry Administration Building.

These are not times in which you can sit back and trust that all will go well. In August, you might want to put the next meeting on your calendar, so you can show up to support these brave board members.